Washington – The US has taken its first real swipe at China following accusations that the Beijing government is behind a widespread and systemic hacking campaign targeting US businesses.

Buried in a spending bill signed by USPresident Barack Obama on Tuesday is a provision that effectively bars much of the US government from buying information technology made by companies linked to the Chinese government.

It is unclear what impact the legislation will have, or whether it will turn out to be a symbolic gesture. The provision only affects certain non-defence government agency budgets between now and 30 September, when the fiscal year ends. It also allows for exceptions if an agency head determines that buying the technology is “in the national interest of the United States”.

Still, the rule could upset US allies whose businesses rely on Chinese manufacturers for parts and pave the way for broader, more permanent changes in how the US government buys technology.

“This is a change of direction,” said Stuart Baker, a former senior official at the Homeland Security Department now with the legal firm Steptoe and Johnson in Washington. “My guess is we’re going to keep going in this direction for a while.”

In March, the US computer security firm Mandiant released details on what it said was an aggressive hacking campaign on American businesses by a Chinese military unit. Since then, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has used high-level meetings with Beijing officials to press the matter. Beijing has denied the allegations.

Congressional leaders have promised to push comprehensive legislation that would make it easier for industry to share threat data with the government. But those efforts have been bogged down amid concerns that too much of US citizens’ private information could end up in the hands of the federal government.

As Congress and privacy advocates debate a way ahead, lawmakers tucked “section 516″ into the latest budget resolution, which enables the government to pay for day-to day operations for the rest of the fiscal year.

The provision specifically prohibits the Commerce and Justice departments, Nasa and the National Science Foundation from buying an information technology system that is “produced, manufactured or assembled” by any entity that is “owned, operated or subsidized” by the People’s Republic of China.

Cyber espionage

The agencies can only acquire the technology if, in consulting with the FBI, they determine that there is no risk of “cyberespionage or sabotage associated with the acquisition of the system,” according to the legislation.

The move might sound like a no-brainer. If US industry and intelligence officials are right, and China is stealing America’s corporate secrets at a breathtaking pace, why reward Beijing with lucrative US contracts?

Furthermore, why install technical equipment that could potentially give China a secret back door into federal systems?

But a blanket prohibition on technology made by the Chinese government may be easier said than done. Information systems are often a complicated assembly of parts manufactured by different companies around the globe. And investigating where each part came from, and if that part is made by a company that could have ties to the Chinese government could be difficult.

Depending on how the Obama administration interprets the law, Baker said it could cause problems for the US with the World Trade Organisation, whose members include US allies like Germany and Britain that might rely on Chinese technology to build computers or handsets.

But in the end, Baker says it could make the US government safer and wiser.

“We do have to worry about buying equipment from companies that may not have our best interests at heart,” he said.

London – One of the largest ever cyber attacks is slowing global internet services after an organisation blocking “spam” content became a target, with some experts saying the disruption could get worse.

Steve Linford, chief executive of Spamhaus, told the BBC that the company had been subjected to attacks on an unprecedented scale for more than a week.

Perpetrators of “distributed denial of service” (DDos) attacks typically target websites by flooding servers with messages from multiple systems so they cannot identify and respond to legitimate traffic.

“Based on the reported scale of the attack, which was evaluated at 300 Gigabits per second, we can confirm that this is one of the largest DDoS operations to date,” online security firm Kaspersky Lab said in a statement.

“There may be further disruptions on a larger scale as the attack escalates.”

Paul Vlissidis, group technical director at internet security firm NCC, said the fact that lots of computers were involved made it much harder to defend against the attack.

“If you have a few computers sending large amounts of traffic you can filter them out easily. When literally thousands and thousands are involved it makes it much, much harder,” he told Reuters.

He said the volumes of traffic involved in the attack were having a knock-on effect on the rest of the internet.

Feds Set To Mandate “Black Box” Data Recorders In Every Single Car And Truck including yours, yours and yours too….Yes yours too!

WASHINGTON – Many motorists don’t know it, but it’s likely that every time they get behind the wheel, there’s a snitch along for the ride.

Today is the last day that the public can comment on a proposed law that would put so-called black boxes in every new car sold by September 1, 2014. The thing is, most cars already have them unbeknownst to many drivers.

Automakers have been quietly tucking the devices, which automatically record the actions of drivers and the responses of their vehicles in a continuous information loop, into most new cars for years.

When a car is involved in a crash or when its airbags deploy, inputs from the vehicle’s sensors during the 5 to 10 seconds before impact are automatically preserved. That’s usually enough to record things like how fast the car was traveling and whether the driver applied the brake, was steering erratically or had a seat belt on. This data has been used recently, for example, to determine what was happening in cars before accidents when some Toyota owners were claiming their cars were accelerating out of control as they were driving.

The idea behind mandating black box data recorders is to gather information that can help investigators determine the causes of accidents and lead to safer vehicles. But privacy advocates say government regulators and automakers are spreading an intrusive technology without first putting in place policies to prevent misuse of the information collected.

Data collected by the recorders is increasingly showing up in lawsuits, criminal cases and high-profile accidents. Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray initially said that he wasn’t speeding and that he was wearing his seat belt when he crashed a government-owned car last year. But the Ford Crown Victoria’s data recorder told a different story: It showed the car was traveling more than 100 mph and Murray wasn’t belted in.

In 2007, then-New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was seriously injured in the crash of an SUV driven by a state trooper. Corzine was a passenger. The SUV’s recorder showed the vehicle was traveling 91 mph on a parkway where the speed limit was 65 mph, and Corzine didn’t have his seat belt on.

In this way, the black boxes can nail liars trying to blame their cars for bad driving.

There’s no opt-out. It’s extremely difficult for car owners to disable the recorders. Although some vehicle models have had recorders since the early 1990s, a federal requirement that automakers disclose their existence in owner’s manuals didn’t go into effect until three months ago. Automakers that voluntarily put recorders in vehicles are also now required to gather a minimum of 15 types of data.

Besides the upcoming proposal to put recorders in all new vehicles, the traffic safety administration is also considering expanding the data requirement to include as many as 30 additional types of data such as whether the vehicle’s electronic stability control was engaged, the driver’s seat position or whether the front-seat passenger was belted in. Some manufacturers already are collecting the information. Engineers have identified more than 80 data points that might be useful.

Privacy complaints have gone unheeded so far. The traffic safety administration says it doesn’t have the authority to impose limits on how the information can be used and other privacy protections. About a dozen states have some law regarding data recorders, but the rest do not.

“Right now we’re in an environment where there are no rules, there are no limits, there are no consequences and there is no transparency,” said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy advocacy group. “Most people who are operating a motor vehicle have no idea this technology is integrated into their vehicle.”

Part of the concern is that the increasing computerization of cars and the growing communications to and from vehicles like GPS navigation and General Motors‘ OnStar system could lead to unintended uses of recorder data.

“Basically your car is a computer now, so it can record all kinds of information,” said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers. “It’s a lot of the same issues you have about your computer or your smartphone and whether Google or someone else has access to the data.”

The alliance opposes the government requiring recorders in all vehicles.

Data recorders “help our engineers understand how cars perform in the real world, and we already have put them on over 90 percent of (new) vehicles without any mandate being necessary,” Bergquist said.

The National Transportation Safety Board has been pushing for recorders in all passenger vehicles since the board’s investigation of a 2003 accident in which an elderly driver plowed through an open-air market in Santa Monica, Calif. Ten people were killed and 63 were injured. The driver refused to be interviewed and his 1992 Buick LeSabre didn’t have a recorder. After ruling out other possibilities, investigators ultimately guessed that he had either mistakenly stepped on the gas pedal or had stepped on the gas and the brake pedals at the same time.

Some automakers began installing the recorders at a time when there were complaints that air bags might be causing deaths and injuries, partly to protect themselves against liability and partly to improve air bag technology. Most recorders are black boxes about the size of a deck of cards with circuit boards inside. After an accident, information is downloaded to a laptop computer using a tool unique to the vehicle’s manufacturer. As electronics in cars have increased, the kinds of data that can be recorded have grown as well. Some more recent recorders are part of the vehicle’s computers rather than a separate device.

One day when you sit down with your grandchildren you will tell them stories about when we were all free, how we used to be able to watch TV without being watched by a Smart TV, how we could drive in our cars and have a personal conversation without anyone listening to us, walk around our home with the curtains closed and know that no one could see us, will they even understand the word “FREEDOM“ who knows it may even become a crime use the word freedom.  - WHISNews21

Below I have posted just a few comments from concerned American’s

People seem to be forgetting that the good thing about living in the United States is that (at least, theoretically) the people are supposed to control the government; the government is not supposed to be controlling the people. If a person wants to live in a country where the government tells the people what to do, by all means they should go there.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I think it is an invasion of our privacy and the fact that it already exist in many cars unknown to the owners is unthinkable. We have the right to decide if we want this new techology and if we want the government spying on us (don\’t do this, it is just WRONG)!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Welcome to Obama and the Democrats new America. Black boxes in cars and soon you will have to register your guns so the government knows who has what weapons.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

So what happens if THE GOVERNMENT passes a law against something you like to do. Perhaps something like Internet comments they deem seditious like compareing THE GOVERNMENT to “Big Brother”. Then they could be coming after you

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

the black box will lead to safer vehicles they claim? ROFL, you mean, its another way and device the insurance company can have and use to get out of paying for the accident if the driver of the car has there insurance!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

There were just too many comment but the last I read I will list below it is direct and to the point..

“Stay Out Of My Life”

CANBERRA – Apple Inc has been ordered to appear before Australia’s parliament with fellow technology giants Microsoft Inc and Adobe Systems Inc to explain why local consumers pay so much for their products, despite the strong Aussie dollar.

Broadening a row between the world’s most valuable company and Australian lawmakers over corporate taxes paid on Apple’s operations, Apple executives were formally summonsed on Monday to front a parliamentary committee in Canberra on 22 March.

“In what’s probably the first time anywhere in the world, these IT firms are now being summoned by the Australian parliament to explain why they price their products so much higher in Australia compared to the United States,” said ruling Labor government MP Ed Husic, who helped set up the committee.

High local prices and soaring cost-of-living bills for basic services are hurting the popularity of the minority Labor government ahead of a September 14 election it is widely tipped to lose, giving political momentum to the inquiry.

All three companies have so far declined to appear before the special committee set up in May last year to investigate possible price gouging on Australian hardware and software buyers, despite the Australian dollar hovering near record highs above the US currency around A$1.03.

A 16GB WiFi iPad produced by Apple with Retina display sells in Australia for A$539, $40 above the price in the US, despite the stronger local currency. Microsoft’s latest versions of office 365 home premium cost A$119 in Australia versus $99.99 in the US.

IT firms and other multinationals have blamed high operating costs in Australia including high local wages and conditions, as well as import costs and the relatively small size of the retail market in the $1.5 trillion economy.

Failure to appear before the committee as ordered could leave all three firms open to contempt of parliament charges, fines or even jail terms.

“For some time consumers and businesses have been trying to work out why they are paying so much more, particularly for software, where if it’s downloaded there is no shipping or handling, or much of a labour cost,” Husic told Reuters.

Adobe and Microsoft have previously provided separate written statements and submissions to the inquiry. But executives have been reluctant to explain their pricing before a public inquiry.

Apple executives in Australia declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.

“The companies have blamed each other for not appearing. One will say ‘we’re not going to appear if the other is not going to appear’. So we’ve cut straight to the chase and said we’ll just summons you,” Husic said.

Price gouging in IT for hardware and software, Husic said, could be costing Australia’s more than 2 million small and medium businesses as much as $10 billion extra.

Husic took aim at Apple last week over local taxes paid by the company, telling parliament that Apple generated A$6 billion in revenue in Australia in 2011, but paid only A$40 million in tax – less than one percent of turnover.

“While they generated A$6 billion in revenue, they apparently racked up from what I understand A$5.5 billion in costs. How?” Husic said. “They do not manufacture here. They have no factories here.”

He accused Apple executives of maintaining a “cloak of invisibility”, while dodging scrutiny of operations.

Apple has been criticised elsewhere for its zealous secrecy.

“Ask anyone who has sought answers from them about their Australian operations and you will hear a common theme. They will not talk,” he said.

Reuters

Why Sprint’s Adding Radio On Smartphones Matters

SKU: BREATHALYZER: Portable and convenient to carry on key chain. Easy to use and quick response and resume. Countdown & count-up timer keep the deadline of parking. LED flashlight torch function. Makes a cool gadget for Friday night outs, Reusable.

Is this a mosquito?

This is really great for monitoring the enemy but is really frightening if it is used to spy on your own people just so that you have control over everyone and everything. That’s the problem with technology it is great but in the wrong hands it is equally dangerous……I am getting scared….

It’s Terrifying And Sickening That Microsoft Can Now Listen In On All Skype Calls

There was a wildly terrifying storypublished late Friday on Slate that didn’t get much attention because of the time of the week it was released. In it, the author – Ryan Gallagher – lays out how Microsoft (MSFT) seems to have made some subtle and (to most) imperceptible changes to the popular Skype calling service that allows it to eavesdrop on all of your calls going forward. (Forbes contributor Anthony Wing Kosner flagged the service changes in an earlier  post published July 18.)

Although it’s not completely clear, some seem to think that Microsoft may have made the changes either from or in anticipation of pressure from various government entities.

As Gallagher points out, “in June [2011], Microsoft was granted a patent for ‘legal intercept’ technology designed to be used with VOIP services like Skype to ‘silently copy communication transmitted via the communication session.’”

Gallagher tried several times last week to confirm that Microsoft had changed Skype’s policies and technologies to allow for accessing all communications.  He got no response, which strongly suggests that they are able to do this.  It’s also important to note that Skype/Microsoft denied the allegation that the change to its architecture this Spring had anything to do with surveillance, according to the Slate article.

Why is this so significant?

To Spy On Us, is an invasion of privacy, yet they do. The bad guys know about the spying so they wont say anything. So will our private conversations will be listened to, for fun and entertainment ?

Most Skype users are still under the legacy impression that Skype communications are private — more private than even their regular old phone conversations. If this has changed since the Microsoft acquisition, it hasn’t been overtly communicated to users.

It’s unclear why, but presumably Microsoft worries that Skype’s meteoric growth would be stunted if more people knew about this privacy adjustment made behind their backs.

And Listening To You, Saving It All

Since the Microsoft purchase, it has been heavily promoted to Facebook (FB) users as an additional communications tool within the Facebook platform.

Yet, new sign-ups to the Skype service are also likely not aware of the capability

.